The Increasing Risk of Signing Hitters Into Their Mid-30s

[sikeston bulldog2]

I seen your name and thought the deep dive of the numbers was coming. It is rather fascinating.
The ball doesn't travel 60' 6". It gets hit about a foot in front, then whatever the stride is and we sometimes see 7 foot strides.
A 100 mph FB takes about 375 milliseconds to travel the distance. 23 ms is gained at 95 mph another gain at 90 mph.

Your numbers are close enough. A very good recall of that total time. 75-100 ms to see it, elite athlete can drop the reaction time to
100 ms that's uncommon, It starts for pros at 200 ms and after a couple years 150 ms is a great accomplishment.
The swing itself takes 150 - 200 ms.
The batter has the process a lot and then projects during that short initial moment where it's going call it that 300 millisecond time,
There is only a 7 ms window of time to determine if the struck ball is fair or foul.

Yeah - let's assume it's like 55 ft. from point of pitch release to bat contact.

90 mph = 132 fps = 417 ms - 300 ms = 117 ms excess time to react
95 mph = 139 fps = 395 ms - 300 ms = 95 ms excess time to react
100 mph = 147 fps = 375 ms - 300 ms = 75 ms excess time to react
105 mph = 154 fps = 357 ms - 300 ms = 57 ms excess time to react

So, while going from 90 mph to 100 mph might be thought of as just a 10-11% increase in velocity, it is effectively more like a ~35% reduction in the excess time a batter has to react ((117 - 75)/117 = a ~35% reduction in excess time to react).

From 90 mph to 105 mph, it's an ~15% increase in velocity, but a ~50% reduction in excess time to react.

And when you add more movement to that increase in velocity, the combination is rather devastating for all batters' ability to make solid contact.

So with the provided equation……we can all see that it’s impossible to hit ML pitching. And yet they do
It’s also logical that if a batter has an expert control of their bat(Gwynn, Carew, Boggs, Rose, Ichiro) that producing a HIT is a much GREATER probability than producing a HR. Given that….if MOST of todays batters are at the plate attempting to produce that perfect launch angle/speed swing HR cut…..the probability is set in stone since the beginning of the game that they will fail at a MUCH greater rate than the batter simply attempting to make contact producing a fair hit landing within the diamond. This is physics, probability, mathematics.
The premise that this rather new “approach” that the batter must attempt this “most damage” swing because thats the only way to hit today’s pitching is ridiculous.

Again, most batters are never going to be Gwynn, Carew, etc. in terms of bat control. They are never going to be that any more than they are going to be Babe Ruth with respect to power. Your unstated premise is that it would easy, if they just tried, to develop expert bat control and be able to place batted balls wherever they want vs. modern pitching (and modern defensive adjustments). That isn't the case.

And, if you are not making solid contact, just getting the ball in play - if you can even do that at a slightly higher rate - isn't necessarily going to lead to more overall success.

There used to be a satin that said- use the pitchers velocity against him. Simply put the bat on ball with good contact. The ball will do the rest. Maybe a shot, maybe a pop up. Either way, barrel on ball will allow the pitchers energy to become a vital part of the formula.

[mattmitchl44]

I seen your name and thought the deep dive of the numbers was coming. It is rather fascinating.
The ball doesn't travel 60' 6". It gets hit about a foot in front, then whatever the stride is and we sometimes see 7 foot strides.
A 100 mph FB takes about 375 milliseconds to travel the distance. 23 ms is gained at 95 mph another gain at 90 mph.

Your numbers are close enough. A very good recall of that total time. 75-100 ms to see it, elite athlete can drop the reaction time to
100 ms that's uncommon, It starts for pros at 200 ms and after a couple years 150 ms is a great accomplishment.
The swing itself takes 150 - 200 ms.
The batter has the process a lot and then projects during that short initial moment where it's going call it that 300 millisecond time,
There is only a 7 ms window of time to determine if the struck ball is fair or foul.

Yeah - let's assume it's like 55 ft. from point of pitch release to bat contact.

90 mph = 132 fps = 417 ms - 300 ms = 117 ms excess time to react
95 mph = 139 fps = 395 ms - 300 ms = 95 ms excess time to react
100 mph = 147 fps = 375 ms - 300 ms = 75 ms excess time to react
105 mph = 154 fps = 357 ms - 300 ms = 57 ms excess time to react

So, while going from 90 mph to 100 mph might be thought of as just a 10-11% increase in velocity, it is effectively more like a ~35% reduction in the excess time a batter has to react ((117 - 75)/117 = a ~35% reduction in excess time to react).

From 90 mph to 105 mph, it's an ~15% increase in velocity, but a ~50% reduction in excess time to react.

And when you add more movement to that increase in velocity, the combination is rather devastating for all batters' ability to make solid contact.

So with the provided equation……we can all see that it’s impossible to hit ML pitching. And yet they do
It’s also logical that if a batter has an expert control of their bat(Gwynn, Carew, Boggs, Rose, Ichiro) that producing a HIT is a much GREATER probability than producing a HR. Given that….if MOST of todays batters are at the plate attempting to produce that perfect launch angle/speed swing HR cut…..the probability is set in stone since the beginning of the game that they will fail at a MUCH greater rate than the batter simply attempting to make contact producing a fair hit landing within the diamond. This is physics, probability, mathematics.
The premise that this rather new “approach” that the batter must attempt this “most damage” swing because thats the only way to hit today’s pitching is ridiculous.

Again, most batters are never going to be Gwynn, Carew, etc. in terms of bat control. They are never going to be that any more than they are going to be Babe Ruth with respect to power. Your unstated premise is that it would easy, if they just tried, to develop expert bat control and be able to place batted balls wherever they want vs. modern pitching (and modern defensive adjustments). That isn't the case.

And, if you are not making solid contact, just getting the ball in play - if you can even do that at a slightly higher rate - isn't necessarily going to lead to more overall success.

There used to be a satin that said- use the pitchers velocity against him. Simply put the bat on ball with good contact. The ball will do the rest. Maybe a shot, maybe a pop up. Either way, barrel on ball will allow the pitchers energy to become a vital part of the formula.

That may have been said - but it may be significantly less true when batters can't reliably square up the ball today even when they are trying to just swing "smoothly" instead of "hard."

[Goldfan]

I seen your name and thought the deep dive of the numbers was coming. It is rather fascinating.
The ball doesn't travel 60' 6". It gets hit about a foot in front, then whatever the stride is and we sometimes see 7 foot strides.
A 100 mph FB takes about 375 milliseconds to travel the distance. 23 ms is gained at 95 mph another gain at 90 mph.

Your numbers are close enough. A very good recall of that total time. 75-100 ms to see it, elite athlete can drop the reaction time to
100 ms that's uncommon, It starts for pros at 200 ms and after a couple years 150 ms is a great accomplishment.
The swing itself takes 150 - 200 ms.
The batter has the process a lot and then projects during that short initial moment where it's going call it that 300 millisecond time,
There is only a 7 ms window of time to determine if the struck ball is fair or foul.

Yeah - let's assume it's like 55 ft. from point of pitch release to bat contact.

90 mph = 132 fps = 417 ms - 300 ms = 117 ms excess time to react
95 mph = 139 fps = 395 ms - 300 ms = 95 ms excess time to react
100 mph = 147 fps = 375 ms - 300 ms = 75 ms excess time to react
105 mph = 154 fps = 357 ms - 300 ms = 57 ms excess time to react

So, while going from 90 mph to 100 mph might be thought of as just a 10-11% increase in velocity, it is effectively more like a ~35% reduction in the excess time a batter has to react ((117 - 75)/117 = a ~35% reduction in excess time to react).

From 90 mph to 105 mph, it's an ~15% increase in velocity, but a ~50% reduction in excess time to react.

And when you add more movement to that increase in velocity, the combination is rather devastating for all batters' ability to make solid contact.

So with the provided equation……we can all see that it’s impossible to hit ML pitching. And yet they do
It’s also logical that if a batter has an expert control of their bat(Gwynn, Carew, Boggs, Rose, Ichiro) that producing a HIT is a much GREATER probability than producing a HR. Given that….if MOST of todays batters are at the plate attempting to produce that perfect launch angle/speed swing HR cut…..the probability is set in stone since the beginning of the game that they will fail at a MUCH greater rate than the batter simply attempting to make contact producing a fair hit landing within the diamond. This is physics, probability, mathematics.
The premise that this rather new “approach” that the batter must attempt this “most damage” swing because thats the only way to hit today’s pitching is ridiculous.

Again, most batters are never going to be Gwynn, Carew, etc. in terms of bat control. They are never going to be that any more than they are going to be Babe Ruth with respect to power. Your unstated premise is that it would easy, if they just tried, to develop expert bat control and be able to place batted balls wherever they want vs. modern pitching (and modern defensive adjustments). That isn't the case.

30, 40, etc. years ago, most players couldn't emulate Gwynn, Carew, etc. vs. the pitchers THEN, and it's even more unlikely for any but the tiniest fraction to be able to emulate them against pitchers NOW.

And, if you are not making solid contact, just getting the ball in play - if you can even do that at a slightly higher rate - isn't necessarily going to lead to more overall success.

Are HR’s much less frequent outcome than a simple hit?? Then why is almost every batter at the plate swinging from their toes…..as hard as they can to hit the ball as far as they can? Only a handful of elite hitters can pull this off AND maintain a high avg. MOST hitters should be more like Rose, Carew, Gwynn…..in approach. This isn’t just my opinion. You listen to Will Clark and plainly says if you want to hit .220 do it like most hitters are today. No change in approach through entire AB….no matter count….no matter game circumstances…..no matter runners on base. Grip and Rip

[sikeston bulldog2]

I seen your name and thought the deep dive of the numbers was coming. It is rather fascinating.
The ball doesn't travel 60' 6". It gets hit about a foot in front, then whatever the stride is and we sometimes see 7 foot strides.
A 100 mph FB takes about 375 milliseconds to travel the distance. 23 ms is gained at 95 mph another gain at 90 mph.

Your numbers are close enough. A very good recall of that total time. 75-100 ms to see it, elite athlete can drop the reaction time to
100 ms that's uncommon, It starts for pros at 200 ms and after a couple years 150 ms is a great accomplishment.
The swing itself takes 150 - 200 ms.
The batter has the process a lot and then projects during that short initial moment where it's going call it that 300 millisecond time,
There is only a 7 ms window of time to determine if the struck ball is fair or foul.

Yeah - let's assume it's like 55 ft. from point of pitch release to bat contact.

90 mph = 132 fps = 417 ms - 300 ms = 117 ms excess time to react
95 mph = 139 fps = 395 ms - 300 ms = 95 ms excess time to react
100 mph = 147 fps = 375 ms - 300 ms = 75 ms excess time to react
105 mph = 154 fps = 357 ms - 300 ms = 57 ms excess time to react

So, while going from 90 mph to 100 mph might be thought of as just a 10-11% increase in velocity, it is effectively more like a ~35% reduction in the excess time a batter has to react ((117 - 75)/117 = a ~35% reduction in excess time to react).

From 90 mph to 105 mph, it's an ~15% increase in velocity, but a ~50% reduction in excess time to react.

And when you add more movement to that increase in velocity, the combination is rather devastating for all batters' ability to make solid contact.

So with the provided equation……we can all see that it’s impossible to hit ML pitching. And yet they do
It’s also logical that if a batter has an expert control of their bat(Gwynn, Carew, Boggs, Rose, Ichiro) that producing a HIT is a much GREATER probability than producing a HR. Given that….if MOST of todays batters are at the plate attempting to produce that perfect launch angle/speed swing HR cut…..the probability is set in stone since the beginning of the game that they will fail at a MUCH greater rate than the batter simply attempting to make contact producing a fair hit landing within the diamond. This is physics, probability, mathematics.
The premise that this rather new “approach” that the batter must attempt this “most damage” swing because thats the only way to hit today’s pitching is ridiculous.

Again, most batters are never going to be Gwynn, Carew, etc. in terms of bat control. They are never going to be that any more than they are going to be Babe Ruth with respect to power. Your unstated premise is that it would easy, if they just tried, to develop expert bat control and be able to place batted balls wherever they want vs. modern pitching (and modern defensive adjustments). That isn't the case.

And, if you are not making solid contact, just getting the ball in play - if you can even do that at a slightly higher rate - isn't necessarily going to lead to more overall success.

There used to be a satin that said- use the pitchers velocity against him. Simply put the bat on ball with good contact. The ball will do the rest. Maybe a shot, maybe a pop up. Either way, barrel on ball will allow the pitchers energy to become a vital part of the formula.

That may have been said - but it may be significantly less true when batters can't reliably square up the ball today even when they are trying to just swing "smoothly" instead of "hard."

You are correct. The art is the frequency of solid contact.

[pitchingandefense]

As pitchers - in particular relief pitchers - have consistently thrown harder and with high spin rates (more movement), the modern approach to hitting has changed. Hitters and hitting instructors know that, for any hitter, just making solid contact is harder in 2025 than it ever has been before.

And that makes physical sense, IIRC, it takes a minimum of 0.3 seconds for a batter to see a pitch with his eye, have the eye send a signal to his brain, have the brain interpret that input into where the ball is going to be and whether to swing or not, and finally to send signals to the body to start the swing. As more pitchers are throwing 95 to 100 mph vs. 90 to 95 mph before, that has a significant impact on how much "excess time" over that 0.3 seconds the batter has. And when pitchers start routinely throwing 100 to 105 mph, it will be even less.

So - knowing that the deck is stacked against making solid contact - hitters have pivoted to trying to do as much damage, hit the ball as hard as they can to generate XBHs instead of singles, when they DO make solid contact. This is backed up by data - MLB isolated power (ISO) in the 1980s tended to be in the .11x, .12x, .13x range annually, whereas today it is in the .15x, .16x, .17x range annually. That leads to more strikeouts as well, but the modern approach to hitting - and it's almost certainly backed up by a lot of analytic data - has figured out that the trade off still leads to more offense.

Fans love their "exceptional" comparisons - why can't more hitters be like Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, etc., why can't more pitchers be like Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, etc. The fact of the matter is that, even in those players' era when the game was better structured to support their approach, almost no players THEN could replicate what Gwynn, Carew, Glavine, Maddux, etc. did and have the same level of success. Let alone any players doing that now.

These reaction times seem to be the clear reason why hitters are declining faster in their mid 30s. There will always be some exceptions to the rule, but the fact is we have fewer elite "older" hitters than we used to.

It's true the modern approach has resulted in runs still being scored. The league ERA in 2015 was 3.96 and in 2025 it was 4.16. It's just an environment now where the elite offense is coming from slightly younger players than it did a decade ago.

As for the "exceptional" comparisons, I get why fans reference them. Those players do come from eras when the ball was put in play more often. That resulted in more action and the game was a better product from a pure entertainment perspective.

[mattmitchl44]

I seen your name and thought the deep dive of the numbers was coming. It is rather fascinating.
The ball doesn't travel 60' 6". It gets hit about a foot in front, then whatever the stride is and we sometimes see 7 foot strides.
A 100 mph FB takes about 375 milliseconds to travel the distance. 23 ms is gained at 95 mph another gain at 90 mph.

Your numbers are close enough. A very good recall of that total time. 75-100 ms to see it, elite athlete can drop the reaction time to
100 ms that's uncommon, It starts for pros at 200 ms and after a couple years 150 ms is a great accomplishment.
The swing itself takes 150 - 200 ms.
The batter has the process a lot and then projects during that short initial moment where it's going call it that 300 millisecond time,
There is only a 7 ms window of time to determine if the struck ball is fair or foul.

Yeah - let's assume it's like 55 ft. from point of pitch release to bat contact.

90 mph = 132 fps = 417 ms - 300 ms = 117 ms excess time to react
95 mph = 139 fps = 395 ms - 300 ms = 95 ms excess time to react
100 mph = 147 fps = 375 ms - 300 ms = 75 ms excess time to react
105 mph = 154 fps = 357 ms - 300 ms = 57 ms excess time to react

So, while going from 90 mph to 100 mph might be thought of as just a 10-11% increase in velocity, it is effectively more like a ~35% reduction in the excess time a batter has to react ((117 - 75)/117 = a ~35% reduction in excess time to react).

From 90 mph to 105 mph, it's an ~15% increase in velocity, but a ~50% reduction in excess time to react.

And when you add more movement to that increase in velocity, the combination is rather devastating for all batters' ability to make solid contact.

So with the provided equation……we can all see that it’s impossible to hit ML pitching. And yet they do
It’s also logical that if a batter has an expert control of their bat(Gwynn, Carew, Boggs, Rose, Ichiro) that producing a HIT is a much GREATER probability than producing a HR. Given that….if MOST of todays batters are at the plate attempting to produce that perfect launch angle/speed swing HR cut…..the probability is set in stone since the beginning of the game that they will fail at a MUCH greater rate than the batter simply attempting to make contact producing a fair hit landing within the diamond. This is physics, probability, mathematics.
The premise that this rather new “approach” that the batter must attempt this “most damage” swing because thats the only way to hit today’s pitching is ridiculous.

Again, most batters are never going to be Gwynn, Carew, etc. in terms of bat control. They are never going to be that any more than they are going to be Babe Ruth with respect to power. Your unstated premise is that it would easy, if they just tried, to develop expert bat control and be able to place batted balls wherever they want vs. modern pitching (and modern defensive adjustments). That isn't the case.

30, 40, etc. years ago, most players couldn't emulate Gwynn, Carew, etc. vs. the pitchers THEN, and it's even more unlikely for any but the tiniest fraction to be able to emulate them against pitchers NOW.

And, if you are not making solid contact, just getting the ball in play - if you can even do that at a slightly higher rate - isn't necessarily going to lead to more overall success.

Are HR’s much less frequent outcome than a simple hit?? Then why is almost every batter at the plate swinging from their toes…..as hard as they can to hit the ball as far as they can? Only a handful of elite hitters can pull this off AND maintain a high avg. MOST hitters should be more like Rose, Carew, Gwynn…..in approach. This isn’t just my opinion. You listen to Will Clark and plainly says if you want to hit .220 do it like most hitters are today. No change in approach through entire AB….no matter count….no matter game circumstances…..no matter runners on base. Grip and Rip

The point isn't maintaining a high average. It's scoring runs.

Just like with the sacrifice bunt, there will be some limited circumstances (like close and late) where just getting a single would take on a greater level of importance than under most circumstances. So, yes, there are no doubt times when just poking the ball into play might be more advantageous.

But, overall, modern theory - as no doubt backed by a lot of analytical evidence - has backed swinging to do "damage" if you do make solid contact as the better baseline approach against modern pitching.

[sikeston bulldog2]

I seen your name and thought the deep dive of the numbers was coming. It is rather fascinating.
The ball doesn't travel 60' 6". It gets hit about a foot in front, then whatever the stride is and we sometimes see 7 foot strides.
A 100 mph FB takes about 375 milliseconds to travel the distance. 23 ms is gained at 95 mph another gain at 90 mph.

Your numbers are close enough. A very good recall of that total time. 75-100 ms to see it, elite athlete can drop the reaction time to
100 ms that's uncommon, It starts for pros at 200 ms and after a couple years 150 ms is a great accomplishment.
The swing itself takes 150 - 200 ms.
The batter has the process a lot and then projects during that short initial moment where it's going call it that 300 millisecond time,
There is only a 7 ms window of time to determine if the struck ball is fair or foul.

Yeah - let's assume it's like 55 ft. from point of pitch release to bat contact.

90 mph = 132 fps = 417 ms - 300 ms = 117 ms excess time to react
95 mph = 139 fps = 395 ms - 300 ms = 95 ms excess time to react
100 mph = 147 fps = 375 ms - 300 ms = 75 ms excess time to react
105 mph = 154 fps = 357 ms - 300 ms = 57 ms excess time to react

So, while going from 90 mph to 100 mph might be thought of as just a 10-11% increase in velocity, it is effectively more like a ~35% reduction in the excess time a batter has to react ((117 - 75)/117 = a ~35% reduction in excess time to react).

From 90 mph to 105 mph, it's an ~15% increase in velocity, but a ~50% reduction in excess time to react.

And when you add more movement to that increase in velocity, the combination is rather devastating for all batters' ability to make solid contact.

So with the provided equation……we can all see that it’s impossible to hit ML pitching. And yet they do
It’s also logical that if a batter has an expert control of their bat(Gwynn, Carew, Boggs, Rose, Ichiro) that producing a HIT is a much GREATER probability than producing a HR. Given that….if MOST of todays batters are at the plate attempting to produce that perfect launch angle/speed swing HR cut…..the probability is set in stone since the beginning of the game that they will fail at a MUCH greater rate than the batter simply attempting to make contact producing a fair hit landing within the diamond. This is physics, probability, mathematics.
The premise that this rather new “approach” that the batter must attempt this “most damage” swing because thats the only way to hit today’s pitching is ridiculous.

Again, most batters are never going to be Gwynn, Carew, etc. in terms of bat control. They are never going to be that any more than they are going to be Babe Ruth with respect to power. Your unstated premise is that it would easy, if they just tried, to develop expert bat control and be able to place batted balls wherever they want vs. modern pitching (and modern defensive adjustments). That isn't the case.

30, 40, etc. years ago, most players couldn't emulate Gwynn, Carew, etc. vs. the pitchers THEN, and it's even more unlikely for any but the tiniest fraction to be able to emulate them against pitchers NOW.

And, if you are not making solid contact, just getting the ball in play - if you can even do that at a slightly higher rate - isn't necessarily going to lead to more overall success.

Are HR’s much less frequent outcome than a simple hit?? Then why is almost every batter at the plate swinging from their toes…..as hard as they can to hit the ball as far as they can? Only a handful of elite hitters can pull this off AND maintain a high avg. MOST hitters should be more like Rose, Carew, Gwynn…..in approach. This isn’t just my opinion. You listen to Will Clark and plainly says if you want to hit .220 do it like most hitters are today. No change in approach through entire AB….no matter count….no matter game circumstances…..no matter runners on base. Grip and Rip

The point isn't maintaining a high average. It's scoring runs.

Just like with the sacrifice bunt, there will be some limited circumstances (like close and late) where just getting a single would take on a greater level of importance than under most circumstances. So, yes, there are no doubt times when just poking the ball into play might be more advantageous.

But, overall, modern theory - as no doubt backed by a lot of analytical evidence - has backed swinging to do "damage" if you do make solid contact as the better baseline approach against modern pitching.

I would agree that swinging to do damage is a nice thought. All batters pretty much do it. And when perfected bingo. I would think that a swing designed to do damage takes on a swing of lesser control, thus the mis hits. I wonder the damage rate of hard swinger verse a contact swinger.

[mattmitchl44]

It's true the modern approach has resulted in runs still being scored. The league ERA in 2015 was 3.96 and in 2025 it was 4.16. It's just an environment now where the elite offense is coming from slightly younger players than it did a decade ago.

Yes, even though we know MLB pitching in general has gotten much tougher over the years since 1969 (57 years):

Of the Top 16 years in highest pitcher ERA, four have come within the last nine seasons.

Of the Top 28 years, nine have come within the last ten seasons.

And, in part, that is because:

Of the Top 16 years in HR/9, nine have come within the last ten seasons.